It only would have been 7 picks if Mac had traded down in the first round this year; other wise, it would have been 5 picks total - Mahomes, 3-2nd round picks, and our 1st round pick this season. Again, no one cherry picked 7 studs or pro bowl players. You're obviously referring to me, and I didn't cherry pick players. If you weren't so lazy, you'd go look at the 2nd round of the 2018 draft. There were 12 players picked from #37 to #49. I meant to list 10 of the 12, but only listed 9 of them. The 3 I didn't mention were Braden Smith (OT), Breeland Speaks (LB), and Christian Kirk (WR). I didn't mention Braden Smith because I figured that Mac wouldn't have taken him since he's a RT and the Jets like Shell. I didn't mention Speaks because he was 283 pounds, and imo he's a 4-3 DE, not a 3-4 OLB, so I didn't think that Mac would have drafted him. Kirk, I just forgot to mention, but he should be added to the list. So literally, if Mac had not traded those two 2nd round picks, he could have taken 10 of the 12 players between the #37 and #49 pick at #37 and it would have been a pretty good pick. Each of those players were productive, started at least half of their team's games, and contributed to their teams in their rookie season. Unless the Jets' draft chart was radically different than the other teams, then chances are that Mac would have taken one of those players, especially considering that almost all of them played positions of need on the Jets. From the 49th pick, I basically just listed the next 4 players chosen and a couple of others, again at positions of need. I even left off two very good players at positions of need, Derrius Guice (RB) and James Washington (WR). With the exception of Jesse Bates (S) I could have easily mentioned the rest of the picks in that round. Mac wouldn't have taken Bates because we had absolutely zero need at S. Brian O'Neill has started 9 games for the Vikes this season, but I believe he is a RT, so Mac wouldn't have drafted him, either. MJ Stewart has started half of TB's games this season. P.J. Hall has started 4 of Oakland's 12 games this season. Isaiah Oliver has only started 2 games, but has 6 passes defensed. That's not too shabby. Derrius Guice has been out with a torn ACL. James Washington has started almost half of Pittsburgh's games this season. D.J. Chark hasn't started any games or made that big of a contribution this season. Carlton Davis has started 10 of the Bucs 11 games. Tyquan Lewis is a 4-3 DE, so Mac probably wouldn't have taken him. Duke Dawson hasn't played this season. I don't know if he's been injured or just not that good. Thus the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Mac taking almost any 2 of those 28 remaining players in the 2nd round and gotten two at least pretty good players at positions of need.
going back to the original post, the premise was keep macc because he drafted Darnold The first point I think many are making is that Macc's actual move was to get to the three spot and he personally was NOT expecting Darnold to even be there. So we can't call the move to get Darnold genius any more than we can say it was luck because Browns and Giants didn't pick him. If it was a draft day trade while the Colts were on the clock this would be a different story The second point I think many are making (the so-called hindsight) is that when it comes to QB picking his record is sketchy -- Hack and Petty, passing (let that sink in -- he could have done this. It's not an issue of a willing partner further up the draft board) Mahomes AND Watson. The third point is look at his body of work. There is no pipeline, crappy drafts and sketch FA. We have more holes than an expansion team. The team has no identity. No one even knows what Macc's vision of a good football team looks like
The 2008 Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB and were one of two 11-5 teams in NFL history to miss the playoffs.
Again, I'm not defending Mac. Going through round by round and selecting players Mac could and SHOULD have taken had he kept those picks is 20-20 hindsight of the highest order. Why I said we just should have just taken Brady in the 5th.
I disagree about not being able to judge drafts in the past with today's information. Read my latest post. Of course some trade ups don't work. If the Giants had taken Darnold, then I think most Jets fans would think that the trade up hadn't worked and would be pissed. I also agree that just because a move worked, doesn't meant that it was the right or best move or a "no-brainer." There's always risk involved in the draft. Any move one makes can succeed or fail. There are acceptable risks and crazy risks, however. This is also the point where need has to be factored in. If one plays it safe in the draft, one will never achieve greatness. To achieve greatness, risk is involved. It means swinging for the fences on occasion and taking some calculated risks. I knew that Mac would never take Mahomes or Watson in 2017, but unless something crazy happens, I will be convinced until my dying day that taking Mahomes was the right move. It involved no trade up, no lost picks, just a potential FQB with amazing arm talent sitting right there at the Jets' pick. Was that as safe a move as taking Adams? Probably not, but when QB is the biggest need, and there were no guarantees that the Jets would be in position to draft a potential FQB in 2018 or be able to trade up, taking Mahomes or Watson was absolutely the right thing to do.
No, you didn't say that I was one of those things. I just threw that in there in case you thought it. I did try countering with facts last night and go nowhere. I didn't say that he or anyone else needed time away. In fact, I've been saying that I may be leaving permanently. I didn't try to get you or anyone else started on politics or larger sociological topics. That's your interpretation. I was just explaining why I got so frustrated last night.
You can judge them but using today's information to indict decisions made in the past without the benefit of perfect information is IMHO lazy. Of course years later is how you judge whether they succeeded or failed but to look back and say "we should have done X, Y and Z" based upon how players drafted within 5-10-15 picks of the player actually drafted is 100% 20-20 vision. No one hits 100% of their picks, suggesting we could have fixed every whole on the team by picking the 3 or 4 players drafted in the same round based upon how those players turned out is weak. Any GM--not just Mac (who I am not defending) could have just as easily taken busts in that same round. It happens all the time. Yet some folks like to look back and fix all our holes with perfect information. THAT'S my point.
If that's your point, then we totally disagree. It's not lazy at all. That's absurd. It's called analytical thinking. If one doesn't look back and analyze, one will never learn anything. It shouldn't even have been a matter of looking back. When you need a QB desperately and there are two good QB prospects sitting there at your pick, you take one of them. You don't wait and "hope" that you'll be able to draft one the following year. That's just common sense. Mac had the opportunity to get a potential FQB in the 2017 draft and passed on the opportunity. As a result he wound up having to trade up in the 2018 draft. So while he got a FQB prospect, it cost him 4 more draft picks than it should have. One of those picks is in the future, so we can't know how it will be used, we just know that not having that pick will hurt. We also know that unless the Jets' draft board was radically different from other teams, that in the 2nd round this year Mac could have taken 2 pretty good players at positions of need. So far none of those players have been a bust. Over 85-90% of them made solid contributions to their respective teams in their rookie season. Mac would have been hard pressed to screw up those 2 picks in this year's draft. We should be a little further along in rebuilding our team. Again, I didn't just cherry pick 3-4 players, I used the rest of the players taken in the 2nd round, which is fair and reasonsable. Some of those players could still turn out to be busts or not great additions, but at least at this point, Mac could have taken almost any two of them and the team would have better depth and be better off. If you don't want to accept that, that's your prerogative.
The more I watch Jamal Adams play, the more I hear him speak the less I sweat passing on Mahommes. The Jets have had great defensive players in the past Mo Lewis & Darelle Revis to name a couple but they were quiet, lead by example types. I'm looking at Jamal Adams I see greatness in him. I think he could be one of those guys like a Ray Lewis, a Warren Sapp not only a great player on the field but a leader vocal & emotional on & off the field the total package. Sure it'll come down to how good Darnold becomes but it's still very early. But man if Darnold becomes that guy along with Adams MacCagnan hit two grand slams in back-to-back drafts.
It's 20-20 hindsight when you pick up a past draft tracker and say "we should have taken x, y and z." Feel free to agree to disagree.
Thanks. I do (disagree). Even if no players names are inserted. It's common sense that if you have a need at QB and two potential FQBs are sitting there at your pick, you take one of them. You don't pass on them both and "hope" that you'll be able to get one the next year, knowing that you'll probably have to trade up to do so. It's also common sense that getting a potential FQB for one pick is better than getting one for 4 picks. It's also common sense that a team that gets their FQB for one pick and still has those other 4 picks to further upgrade talent or address needs is better off than a team that skips taking a QB, takes a player at another position, and then it costs them 4 picks to draft a FQB prospect. That's the only important point imo. That doesn't require any hindsight or "laziness."
You're opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinions of a GM--for good or bad. Your common sense may not be common among real NFL people. None of us are professional football people, we're just guessing. And from year to year, no one has any idea where they will be the following year and whether they'll have the first pick or whether they'll have to give up picks to get to 1 or 3 or 10. If you don't love a QB you can't take a QB because you know to a certitude in the future it's going to take 4 picks in the future to get the QB or QBs you want. Because you can't know that. Just like you can't know player X is going to be a superstar or a bust. Or which 16 players in a round are going to be studs and which 16 are going to be duds. It's 20-20 hindsight of the highest order. It's why I call it lazy.
I agree with your first statement. I totally disagree with the rest. No, teams don't know from year-to-year where they will be, but they have a general idea. If their team is a bottom of the league team, they know they're not gonna be in the SB the next season. They know what their holes are, what players may be changing teams, what players may be retiring, etc. Any GM that isn't brain dead knows that top there is a desperate need for quality QBs in the NFL and that it is a passing league now. Further, they know that unless they are picking in the top 2 spots, more than likely, they're going to have to trade up to get a FQB prospect. They also know that they'll likely have competition for that FQB prospect, and that moving up won't come cheaply. They should have a general idea of what the cost will be (3-4 picks, maybe more depending upon how much competition there is for that pick and how greedy that GM is). It's not a matter of knowing that it's going to cost 4 picks. It's that if there's a potential FQB sitting there you'd better take him, because there are no guarantees that you'll even get a shot at a FQB in the next draft that is the issue.
You are making some assumptions that are obvious to you but may, in fact, not be the in the consensus.
I don't think anyone has said that we WOULD HAVE drafted 7 "studs". What HAS been said is that Macc would've had 7 more picks to work with, and that in all probability would have hit on at least a couple of those, which means that would have been a COUPLE MORE good players than we currently have. This is a failure on his part. Even if all 7 didn't work out - unlikely but possible - he still would've had 7 more "bites at the apple" than he wound up with. That's a failure on his part. Bottom line: He had an opportunity to draft a highly rated QB (Mahomes or Watson were both thought to be Round 1 talent by many evaluators), and he needed a QB, but he passed. Best case "defense" of this is that he was counting on 2018 providing more/better QBs in the draft, but as I pointed out this was a big gamble. How could he know the best prospects wouldn't have a down year or get hurt, and further, that the Jets would be in a draft position to draft one of the top QBs, either by their record or by trading up? It's also possible that he just doesn't value QBs that highly, or more highly than whatever the "consensus BPA" is in any given year. If that's the case, then he's even a bigger idiot than I thought. So he had the need and the opportunity to fill the need, but passed and it wound up costing him 4 prime picks the following year, plus the uncertainty of who would be available at #3 until both the Browns and Giants picked. It was a a FAIL.
Yes as long as Darnold becomes that guy.........let's see if he makes it three straight drafts. A lot of good players out there depending on the position he selects.....
